THE 


337-^ 

£. 


TRUTH  ABOUT 


u 


PROTECTION. 


5J 


BY 

JOEL  BENTON. 


* 


5f  eui  |3ork: 

CHARLES  L.  WEBSTER  & CO 
1892. 


Copyright,  1892, 

CHARLES  L.  WEBSTER  & CO. 

{All  rights  reserved.) 


PRESS  OF 

Jenkins  & McCowan, 

NEW  YORK. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


It  is  impossible  to  discuss  a topic  exhaust- 


ively, which  requires  an  octavo,  within  the 
limits  of  a brief  essay.  I have  therefore  been 
obliged  to  omit  much  from  this  tract  that 
might  have  been  forcibly  said  on  behalf  of  my 
contention.  The  college  boy,  who  had  for  his 
subject  “ Infinity,”  and  but  five  minutes  to 
treat  it  in,  represents  my  situation. 

< ) 

But  I trust  I have  given  here  proper  atten- 
tion to  the  fundamental  points  that  are  the 
basis  of  “ Protectionism.”  When  the  whole 
American  people  shall  once  thoroughly  under- 
stand them,  a better  day  will  dawn  for  the  re- 
public. To  contribute  slightly  to  that  end  has 


been  my  chief  purpose  in  writing  this  essay. 


\ 


The  Author. 


Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y., 


Aug.  18,  1892. 


J 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/truthaboutprotecOObent 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION. 


“ Protection,”  so  called,  is  the  sugar-coated 
label  for  a vast  and  complicated  system  of 
high  taxation  applied  to  commerce.  This 
taxation  is  not  placed  for  purposes  which  make 
taxation  just  and  lawful,  but  for  the  benefit  of 
certain  special  firms  and  businesses.  While  it 
is  put  directly  upon  imports,  so  that  all  goods 
foreign  and  domestic  are  raised  in  price  by  it, 
it  is  also  a burden  upon  exports,  since  this  en- 
hancement of  price,  both  upon  manufactured 
articles,  and  the  raw  material  from  which  they 
are  produced,  makes  competition  in  the  world’s 
markets  either  very  difficult  or  utterly  impos- 
sible. It  has  been  called  the  “ American  Sys- 
tem ” for  it  reaches  out  always  for  high-sound- 
ing names  and  phrases ; but  it  is  no  more 
American  than  the  Mohammedan  religion  is. 
It  was  the  invention  of  foreign  and  despotic 
governments,  and  came  down  from  ancient 
and  mediaeval  times.  In  a free  government 
like  ours,  where  the  people  are  declared  to  be 

5 


6 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.” 


equal,  it  is  an  anachronism  and  a stinging  in- 
justice. 

“ Protection  ” is  an  anomaly  in  our  govern- 
ment, for  it  is  a species  of  socialism,  no  coun- 
terpart to  which  exists  under  our  constitution 
and  laws.  It  has,  in  fact,  no  direct  warrant  in 
law.  Whenever  and  however  it  has  been 
established  here,  it  has  got  into  existence  as  a 
parasite,  and  consequently  by  a fraud  upon  the 
people.  Before  every  tariff  bill  the  introduc- 
tory or  enacting  clause  says  : “ An  act  to  raise 
revenue,”  or  words  of  tantamount  meaning. 
It  is  only  by  this  swindle  of  professed  intention 
that  “ Protection  ” lodges  itself  in  our  legisla- 
tion, or  can  possibly  get  a foothold — if  you 
omit  the  one  provision  in  the  McKinley  bill 
whereby  direct  bounties  are  given  to  the  sugar 
producers.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  cite  this 
exception,  however,  for  “ protection  ” by  boun- 
ties is  not  likely  to  be  repeated.  Even  the 
“Protectionists”  dread  the  open  character  it 
gives  to  their  theoretical  and  esoteric  nostrum 
which  works  best  the  more  its  modus  operandi 
is  kept  out  of  sight  and  is  unknown.  Fortu- 
nately, this  instance  of  “ Protection  ” has  been 
legally  defined  to  be  a proper  part  of  the  sys- 
tem. This,  while  it  settles  the  fact  (which 
your  “ Protectionist  ” gets  red  in  the  face  in 
denying)  that  the  tariff  is  a tax,  also  contro- 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.”  / 

verts  in  another  point  the  unanswerable  decis- 
ion of  the  late  Justice  Miller — one  of  the  clear- 
est-minded men  ever  on  the  United  States 
bench — who  said  in  the  celebrated  Topeka  case 
(Loan  Association  vs.  Topeka) : 


“ To  lay  with  one  hand  the  power  of  the  government  on 
the  property  of  the  citizen  and  with  the  other  to  bestow  it  on 
favored  individuals  to  aid  private  enterprises  and  build  up 
private  fortunes  is  none  the  less  robbery  because  it  is  done 
under  the  forms  of  law  and  called  taxation.  This  is  not 
legislation.  It  is  a decree  under  legislative  forms.” 

This  brave  and  honest  decision  makes  one 
thing  plain  : Wherever  there  is  “ Protection  ” 
there  is  robbery.  In  imitation  of  a certain  be- 
lief of  theology,  the  government  under  this 
system  is  made  to  show  preference  to  a few 
and  impose  preterition  and  reprobation  on  the 
mass.  By  its  operation  the  tariff  beneficiaries 
are  bountied  while  the  great  multitude  of  the 
people  are  bled  for  their  benefit.  The  favored 
producer  represents  but  a comparative  few, 
while  the  plundered  consumer  represents  every- 
body. 

“ Protectionism,”  as  has  been  well  said,  is 
the  doctrine  that  waste  makes  wealth. 

If  a son  should  ask  his  father  for  capital  to 
assist  him  to  do  an  unprofitable  business — the 
fact  being  known  to  both  that  for  a period  of 


8 THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.” 

fifty  or  a hundred  years  it  could  not  be  made 
profitable,  so  that  at  the  expiration  of  that  time 
it  would  still  need  the  father’s  fostering  purse, 
with  no  predictable  epoch  in  sight  when  the 
subvention  might  cease  — the  father  would 
promptly  decline  the  request,  even  though  he 
were  a “ Protectionist.”  Yet  this  is  precisely 
what  he,  as  a faithful  son  of  the  Government, 
asks  the  Government  to  do  for  him  or  for 
somebody.  If  a business  by  a careful  outlay 
of  capital,  by  wise  economy  and  by  Yankee 
shrewdness  and  inventive  wit  cannot  possibly 
be  made  to  pay,  it  is  a positive  loss  to  under- 
take or  continue  it.  And  the  Government,  in 
this  case,  should  not  be  asked  to  tax  the  peo- 
ple for  its  support.  If  it  can  be  made  to  pay, 
as  the  large  multitude  of  manufactories  and 
crutched-up  industries  can  of  themselves,  then 
“ Protection  ” is  an  impertinence  and  uncalled 
for.  In  any  event  it  is  a swindle,  though  it  be 
embodied  in  a hundred  statutes.  The  suppo- 
sition that  a country  can  be  forced  into  un- 
profitable businesses  with  ultimate  gain,  which 
individuals  cannot  contrive  to  make  successful, 
is  one  of  the  fundamental  errors  which  under- 
lie “ Protection.” 

But  this  is  only  one  of  its  many  hallucina- 
tions. It  is  a dogma  of  pseudo-political  econ- 
omy which  seems  to  have  been  born  on  the 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.”  9 

pupil’s  side  of  the  kindergarten  or  nursery,  for 
it  is  a distinct  attempt  at  compassing  the  child’s 
desire  of  being  able  to  “ eat  your  cake  and 
have  it  too.”  But  the  proverb  says,,  and  says 
rightly,  that  this  feat  cannot  be  done.  The  way 
the  “ Protectionist  ” thinks  he  can  do  it  is  by 
trying  to  sell  without  buying.  He  does  not 
perceive  that  all  trade,  reduced  to  the  final 
analysis,  whether  between  individuals  or  na- 
tions, and  whether  money  or  commodities  are 
used,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  barter. 
And  what  is  called  trade  between  nations  is 
really  nothing  more  than  so  many  individual 
bargains.  If  they  can  be  profitably  made  they 
go  on  and  benefit  results.  If  they  cannot, 
they  stop,  and  the  individuals  who  engaged  in 
them  find  other  ways  to  attain  their  ends  or 
satisfy  their  desires  ; so  that  the  nation  is  not 
called  upon  to  see  what  kind  of  trade  or  how 
much  or  how  little  trade  is  done.  It  has  no 
business  to  compel  trade  by  a bribe,  or  to  pun- 
ish it  by  penalties.  It  does  its  whole  duty 
when  it  takes  its  hands  off,  and  looks  the 
other  way.  The  “ Protectionist  ” bogy,  there- 
fore, of  the  “ unfavorable  balance  of  trade,” 
which  for  fifty  years  and  more  he  has  been 
evoking  to  scare  the  people  with,  is  a pure  fic- 
tion of  a perverted  political  vision.  There  is 
p.o  such  thing  (in  other  words,  no  such  a 


IO  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.” 

“ Mrs.  Harris  ”),  and  any  tendency  to  such  a 
danger  meets  constantly  a self-limiting  brake 
in  the  mechanism  of  commerce  that  reverses, 
at  a certain  point,  the  whole  movement. 

There  is  really  no  more  need  of  the  Govern- 
ment’s putting  itself  into  a state  of  concern  and 
anxiety  about  the  amount  we  buy  of  other 
nations  than  there  is  of  its  settling  up  the  bal- 
ances of  the  far  larger  aggregate — inconceiv- 
able in  amount — of  our  purchases  and  bargains 
at  home.  Every  single  bargain  with  a for- 
eigner is  a purely  individual  one,  and  it  is  either 
good  or  bad  as  any  particular  bargain  is  which 
one  of  us  makes  wTith  a fellow-citizen.  If  we 
find  a profit  in  the  bargain,  in  either  case,  we 
are  apt  to  repeat  it  ; if  we  find  injury  we  go 
elsewhere  or  desist.  If  this  were  not  so  there 
could  be  no  possible  remedy.  Any  attempt  to 
call  in  the  aid  of  Congress  to  adjust  matters 
like  these — or  to  fix  tariffs  except  strictly  for 
revenue — is  to  introduce  untold  mischief  an<f 
confusion.  No  Congress  that  ever  sat  2^ 
Washington  is  any  more  qualified  to  tinker 
with  trade  and  private  businesses  and  regulate 
the  incidences  and  intricacies  of  its  acts  than  i- 
would  be  to  patch  up  a supposed  error  in  th*- 
precession  of  the  equinox. 

“ Protectionism  ” has  really  no  correct  con. 
ception  of  what  “ trade  ” is.  It  treats  foreign 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION/’  I I 

trade  as  it  does  the  cholera,  or  yellow  fever, 
by  building  a quarantine  against  it  in  the  style 
of  a Chinese  wall.  But  it  relents  in  part,  and 
inconsistently,  by  allowing  some  of  the  noxious 
j germs  to  pass  over  the  wall  and  so  endanger 
our  economic  health.  Its  only  logical  position 
| was  set  forth  by  Henry  C.  Carey,  who  had  a 
1 clear  vision  on  some  points  of  political  econ- 
^omy,  who  said  that  it  '‘would  be  better  com- 
mercially for  this  country  if  the  Atlantic  Ocean 
Were  a sea  of  fire.”  This  was  truly  brave  and 
Consistent.  It  is  exceedingly  refreshing  too,  in 
these  days  of  fraudulent  cries  for  “ Protection 
and  Reciprocity  ” — two  things  that,  where  they 
are  not  purposed  shams,  go  together  with  pre- 
cisely the  same  effect  that  is  produced  by  pour- 
ing a hogshead  of  water  on  a garden  bonfire, 
j There  is  no  “ Protectionist  ” living,  or  that 
ever  did  live,  who  can  tell  what  difference 
|;here  is  economically,  in  the  act  of  a farmer 
who  lives  in  southern  Vermont,  who  goes  to 
Massachusetts  and  buys  a horse  and  takes  it 
jjiome  with  him,  and  that  of  a farmer  in  north- 
ern Vermont  who  steps  over  into  Canada,  on 
tihe  next  farm  to  his  own,  and  buys  a horse 
which  he  takes  to  his  Vermont  stable.  The 
transactions  are  precisely  the  same  in  essence 
and  character.  It  is  possible  though,  that  the 
Canada  horse  was  bought  at  a lower  price 


12  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION." 

than  the  Massachusetts  one  was  ; but  then,  it 
may  not  have  been — and  either  way,  the  tran- 
sactions do  not  differ.  But,  because  it  is  prob- 
able that  horses  can  be  procured  cheaper  in 
Canada  to  the  extent,  say,  of  $15  apiece,  “ Pro- 
tectionism ” says  they  must  not  be  purchased. 
If  you  do  purchase  one  you  will  be  fined  at 
least  $15  ; and  you  must  thank  your  stars  that 
both  fine  and  imprisonment  are  not  meted  out 
for  so  heinous  a crime. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  see,  at  this  point, 
just  what  damage  this  one  obstruction  in  the 
tariff  does  to  the  nation  economically.  If  we 
may  conclude,  from  the  incomplete  census 
reports,  that  about  twenty  million  horses  are 
needed  by  us  for  constant  use,  then  a tariff* 
clause  which  compels  them  to  cost  us  $15? 
more  per  head  than  they  need  to  cost,  inflicts 
a loss  upon  the  country,  in  the  purchase  of  one 
article,  of  $300,000,000.  If  the  reader  should 
take  any  “ Protectionist  ” tariff  schedule,  line 
by  line,  and  see  what  other  things  of  equal! 
importance  or  of  more  abundant  use  are  made 
also  irrationally  dear,  he  will  very  soon  find 
that  our  “Protection”  Juggernaut  is  running 
over  the  necks  of  the  people  at  a prodigious 
cost.  And  there  is,  positively,  not  a particle  oil 
compensation  for  this  phlebotomy,  as  I shall 
show  further  on. 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION/'  1 3 

I have  said  that  the  “ Protectionist  ” does 
not  have  an  accurate  conception  of  what 
“ trade  ” is.  Its  mutuality  of  benefit  he  either 
does  not  perceive,  or  else  willfully  perverts. 
To  be  consistent  (which  is  a virtue  “ Protec- 
tionism ” has  no  alliance  with),  he  ought  not 
to  kiss  his  wife  if  he  is  sure  she  takes  any 
pleasure  in  the  osculation,  since  some  benefit  is 
conferred  on  another  party  by  the  transaction. 
In  economics,  and  in  affection  too,  however, 
no  one  ever  considers  a benefit  to  another,  con- 
current with  his  own,  a damage  to  himself. 
But  you  constantly  hear  this  consideration  ex- 
pressed in  mock  terror  by  the  High  Tariffite — 
in  this  form  perhaps : “ Do  you  want  to  give 
England  your  market  ? ” as  if  that  were  a 
stumper,  or  had  the  slightest  conceivable  rela- 
tion to  the  subject. 

All  this  confusion  of  mind  comes  from  the 
idea  that  to  trade  with  a foreigner  is  to  help 
him,  and  hurt  ourselves.  What  we  know  is, 
that  it  does  help  us,  and  that  is  enough  to 
know,  though  it  should  be  a mental  satisfac- 
tion, at  least,  to  us,  to  notice  that  because  it 
helps  him,  it  may  for  that  very  reason  enable 
him  to  make  our  future  bargains  still  better 
and  better,  the  more  he  gains  by  them.  But 
that  he  has,  or  can  “ have  our  market,”  in  any 
exclusive  sense,  as  is  claimed  by  the  “ Protec- 


14  the  truth  about  “protection. 

tionist,”  I totally  and  unqualifiedly  deny.  The 
truth  is,  we  do  not  have  it  ourselves  when  we 
shut  it  up.  Trade  consisting  of  exports  and 
imports  resembles  a pair  of  shears.  To  re- 
duce or  obstruct  either  is  to  decrease  the  value 
of  the  instrument.  We  cannot  buy  of  foreign 
tradesmen  the  $890,000,000  of  wares  a year 
we  now  buy,  without  paying  for  the  goods. 
And  it  must  be  remembered  that  these  are  all 
paid  for  by  goods  or  services  of  our  own,  not 
excepting  the  small  amount  of  cash  we  may 
sometimes  pay  on  balances,  which  is,  itself,  a 
commodity  that  some  one,  no  matter  who,  has 
previously  paid  to  us  for  goods  or  services. 

Now,  if  we  should  hereafter  import  $1,400,- 
000,000,  by  battering  down  the  tariff  walls,  it 
would  only  be  done  because  we  could  do  so 
with  advantage.  The  citizen  doing  a foreign 
trade,  whether  he  be  a “ Protectionist  ” or  a 
“Free  Trader,”  would  first  look  at  his  oppor- 
tunity. It  makes  no  difference  which  faith  he 
holds ; he  would  act  precisely  as  his  antago- 
nist would.  If  there  was  a better  bargain 
within  his  reach,  from  abroad,  he  would  take 
it,  and  the  payment  consummating  it  would 
send  away  some  production  made  here.  This 
law  is  as  unvarying  a one  as  that  of  hydro- 
statics, which  makes  water  seek  its  level.  The 
“Protectionist”  knows  that  domestic  trades 


I 

THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.”  1 5 

| are  self-balancing,  but  owing  to  some  species 
j of  color  blindness,  he  cannot  see  that  the  in- 
terception of  a State  boundary  or  an  ocean  in 
no  way  changes  the  economic  result.  He  is 
alarmed  at  the  increase  of  imports  to  even  the 
extent  of  $1,000,000;  and  yet  he  ought  to 
know  that  such  a purchase  additional  by  us 
compels  other  nations,  also,  to  buy  an  extra 
$1,000,000  worth  of  our  commodities. 

And  the  balance  is  sure  to  be  kept,  without 
invoking  a Congressional  panacea,  which  can 
do  nothing  but  injury.  It  matters  not  that 
the  balance,  one  way  or  the  other,  is  com- 
pleted without  reference  to  calendar  months. 
The  fact  that  we  seem  to  buy  more  than  we 
sell  one  year,  is  pretty  good  evidence  that 
some  other  year  we  shall  sell  more  than  we 
buy.  Our  domestic  balances  do  not  act  differ- 
ently, and  whether  trade  be  foreign  or  domes- 
tic, it  is  always  a matter  between  individuals 
solely ; is  not  the  proper  concern  of  any  Gov- 
ernment ; is,  in  its  entire  nature,  beneficent, 
and  the  more  beneficent,  the  more  it  is  left 
untrammeled  and  let  alone.  The  day  is  swift- 
ly coming  when  the  Government  will  no  more 
be  permitted  to  tell  its  people  where,  and  of 
whom,  it  shall  buy  its  goods  — under  tariff 
fines  for  disobedience — than  it  will  be  per- 
mitted to  tell  its  young  men  and  young 


1 6 THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.” 

women  whom  they  shall  marry.  A direction 
in  the  one  case  is  fully  as  offensive  and  im- 
pertinent as  it  would  be  in  the  other. 

It  is  thought  by  the  “ Protectionist  ” to  be  a 
specially  American  thing  to  refuse  to  buy  a 
foreign  commodity.  A certain  apparently 
paretical  individual,  in  addressing  his  “ Pro- 
tectionist ” confreres  at  Rochester  the  other 
day,  declared  that  he  “ would  not  buy  a pair  of 
French  calfskin  shoes  if  he  could  get  them 
for  ten  cents,”  so  devoted  was  he — we  are  led 
to  infer — to  American  leather.  But  it  would- 
n’t do  to  trust  him  to  fulfill  that  declaration. 
Unless  he  is  really  an  imbecile,  he  has  always 
done  as  Tariffites  do  equally  with  others  : he 
has  — when  not  hindered  — bought  what  is 
cheapest  in  relation  to  real  value.  He  would 
both  injure  his  country  and  himself  if  he  did 
otherwise.  It  would  not  only  be  unpatriotic 
to  do  what  he  claimed  was  patriotic — it  would 
be  simply  idiotic.  Not  even  “ Protectionism  ” 
has  got  to  this  low  stage  of  paresis  yet. 

It  was  Henry  Clay  who  gave  the  name  of 
the  “ American  System  ” to  “ Protection  ” in 
1824.  Webster  was  then  opposed  to  it,  and 
denied  the  applicability  of  the  name.  He  re- 
sented the  assumption  that  one  form  of  Tariff- 
ism  was  any  more  patriotic  than  another,  or 
that  any  man  or  party  had  other  aims  than  to 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.”  I 7 

promote  American  interests.  “ If  reasons  are  to 
be  given,”  he  said,  “ it  is  a little  curious  to  know 
with  what  propriety  of  speech  this  imitation 
of  other  nations  is  denominated  an  ‘ American  ’ 
policy;  while,  on  the  contrary,  a preference  of 
our  own  established  system  as  it  now  actually 
exists,  and  has  always  existed,  is  called  a For- 
eign policy.  This  favorite  American  policy  is 
what  America  has  never  tried;  and  this  odious 
foreign  policy  is  what,  as  we  are  told,  foreign 
States  have  never  pursued." 

If  any  one  will  calmly  sit  down  and  read  all 
that  Hamilton,  Clay  and  Webster  have  written 
and  said  about  “ Protection  ” (for  they  have 
all,  at  certain  periods,  spoken  against  it),  he 
will  see  that  they  only  favored  it — when  they 
did  favor  it — against  the  hostile  tariffs  of  other 
nations,  and  freely  admitted  the  beneficence 
of  unrestricted  commerce.  “ I,  too,”  said  Clay, 
‘‘am  a friend  to  Free  Trade,  but  it  must  be  a 
Free  Trade  of  perfect  reciprocity.”  This  was 
equivalent  to  Garfield’s  belief  “in  a ‘ Protec- 
tion ’ that  leads  to  ultimate  Free  Trade.”  When 
they  spoke  for  “Protection,”  it  was  always 
with  the  qualification  that  it  was  to  be  tenta- 
tive and  temporary ; and  if  they  were  living 
to-day,  and  should  demand  double  the  rate  of 
their  highest  Tariff,  our  modern  “ Protection- 
ists” would  dub  them  hideous  “ Free  Traders.” 


1 8 THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.’" 

Not  one  of  them  ever  asked  for  “ Protection  ” 
to  keep  or  to  make  wages  high. 

“Protectionists”  claim  that  manufactures 
could  not  exist  in  the  United  States  without 
help  from  the  Government.  The  fact  is  that  no 
manufactures  of  importance,  or  of  large  extent, 
exist  here  now  (except  of  newly  invented  wares), 
which  did  not  exist  before,  or  while  “ Protec- 
tionism” was  in  its  homoeopathic  infancy. 
Some  of  the  most  prosperous  manufactures 
we  have,  have  either  grown  up  without  tariff 
help,  or  have  continued  to  thrive  with  a tariff 
withdrawn  from  them.  The  whole  history  of 
this  talk  is  the  history  of  a deceptive  pretext 
used  in  some  other  countries,  as  well  as  here, 
to  obtain  Government  help  to  swell  profits  al- 
ready sufficiently  remunerative.  A high  tariff 
on  raw  materials,  in  which  this  country  spe- 
cially indulges,  is  an  absolute  hindrance  and 
handicap  to  manufactures.  It  has  actually  made 
wool,  which  sold  for  $i  a pound  and  upward 
twenty-eight  years  ago,  sell  for  less  than  twenty- 
eight  cents  now.  The  history  of  wool  Protection 
alone,  furnishes  a model  object-lesson  of  the  re- 
sult of  a “false  philosophy”  freely  exploited,  of 
which  the  public  should  be  constantly  reminded. 
“ Protection  ” has  done  more  than  any  other 
maleficent  factor  to  destroy  agriculture,  to 
make  abandoned  farms,  and  to  blanket  the 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.”  I9 

most  fertile  states  of  the  West  with  an  almost 
continuous  carpet  of  mortgages.  It  has  practi- 
cally destroyed  commerce  under  the  American 
flag,  and  made  ship-building  a lost  art.  It  is 
estimated  that  we  now  pay  annually  $200,000,- 
000  in  freight  charges  to  foreign  ships,  that 
we  ought  to  be  able  to  pay  to  ships  made  here, 
which  the  protective  delusion  has  prevented  us 
from  making.  And  one  disgraceful  result  of 
this  policy  is  the  fact  that  ships  built  through 
the  employment  of  American  capital,  abroad, 
can  be  used,  in  case  of  a war,  by  the  nation 
whose  flag  they  sail  under,  against  our  own 
country.  Was  there  ever  a more  scathing 
irony  than  to  call  the  doctrine  whieh  does  this 
the  “American  System?” 

“ Protectionists  ” never  see  that  labor  and 
manufactures  are  not  things  in  themselves 
valuable.  It  is  only  their  useful  or  desirable 
results  that  we  care  for.  To  labor  to  no  end, 
or  to  manufacture  something  absolutely  worth- 
less, would  be  worse  than  to  have  no  stimulus 
to  labor,  and  no  manufactures.  Since  it  is  re- 
sults only  that  we  want,  it  is  most  to  our  profit 
to  obtain  these  results  where  we  can  procure 
them  to  the  best  advantage.  If  everybody 
had  Aladdin’s  lamp,  our  best  business  would 
be  to  press  the  button,  and  get  our  desires 
gratified  without  further  effort.  As  we  have 


20  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.” 

no  such  device,  the  next  best  thing  is  to  be 
permitted  to  buy  where  we  can  buy  the  cheap- 
est, and  sell  where  we  can  sell  the  dearest. 

One  of  the  difficulties  which  would  still  in- 
here in  “ Protectionism,”  if  it  were  a good  sys- 
tem, is  the  fact  that  a committee  of  miraculous 
wisdom  and  goodness  could  not  apply  it  equi- 
tably to  those  supposed  to  be  entitled  to  it;  and 
if  it  could  once  be  so  applied,  the  derangement 
of  equities  by  changed  commercial  conditions 
would  call  for  a new  adjustment  every  year. 

One  of  the  worst  results  of  the  system  is  the 
corruption  it  is  sure  to  breed,  and  which  would 
alone  condemn  it  if  it  were  wholly  based,  as  it 
is  not,  on  a correct  theory.  The  alliance  of 
the  Government  with  special  businesses,  employ- 
ing hundreds  of  millions  of  capital,  whereby 
the  Government  puts  a siphon  on  the  public 
treasury,  and  turns  a liberal  portion  of  its  con- 
tents, which  are  the  people’s  hard  earnings, 
into  the  pockets  of  private  individuals,  is  the 
most  positively  vicious  and  immoral  perform- 
ance that  legislation  can  be  guilty  of.  The 
party  which  proposes  to  do  this,  and  does  do 
it,  can  command  untold  millions  of  campaign 
money  from  these  beneficiaries,  and  can  practi- 
cally destroy  the  integrity  of  the  ballot  and 
free  Government  itself. 

It  can  easily  be  seen,  by  a study  of  the  way 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.”  2 1 

taken  to  secure  high  duties,  that  the  duties 
will  inevitably  go  to  the  log-rollers  who  will 
pay  most  in  an  election  quid  pro  quo  to  get 
them,  and  who  will  join  hands  at  Washington 
to  help  each  other.  As  it  happens,  men  whose 
businesses  cannot  plead  even  a “Protectionist’s  ” 
excuse  for  having  them  applied  are  favored, 
while  those  not  rich  enough  to  maintain  a lobby 
or  render  the  election  service  must  go  without. 
In  any  event,  it  is  the  beneficiary  of  the  tariff 
who  makes  it  what  it  is,  and  the  consumer  who 
is  its  victim,  and  pays  the  ultimate  bill.  The 
threadbare  argument  that  “ Protection  ” makes 
high  wages  is  one  of  the  most  astounding  fal- 
lacies of  modern  times.  All  trustworthy  statis- 
tics in  the  civilized  world  contradict  it.  Here 
are  a few  facts  in  proof  of  my  position  : 

i.  The  wages  of  carpenters,  masons,  black- 
smiths, and  various  other  craftsmen  in  our 
country,  which  is  under  the  influence  of  “ Pro- 
tection ” throughout  its  entire  territory,  vary 
from  nearly  two-thirds  to  one-half  of  the  max- 
imum price  paid  for  their  labor  in  various  cities, 
from  Portland  to  San  Francisco.  They  not 
only  vary  greatly  through  spaces  of  territory, 
but  they  vary  through  different  points  of  time 
under  precisely  the  same  tariff.  These  two  cir- 
cumstances could  not  possibly  happen  if  wages 
were  fixed  by  “ Protection.” 


22 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.’ 


2.  In  every  fair  comparison  of  countries  with 
each  other,  wages  can  be  shown  to  rise  as  the 
customs  duties  are  lowered.  Free-trade  Eng- 
land to-day  pays  the  highest  wages  known  in 
Europe ; and  France,  Germany,  Austria,  and 
Russia  pay  in  an  order  exactly  related  to  the 
lowness  of  the  tariff — ending  with  Russia,  where 
the  highest  tariff  assures  the  lowest  wages. 
(One  should  be  fair  enough  to  say  on  this 
question,  though,  that  there  are  other  factors 
than  the  tariff  which  help  to  make  wages  what 
they  are,  some  of  which  I will  call  in  evidence 
soon.) 

3.  Where  statistics  on  this  point  have  been 
presented,  it  can  be  proved  that  wages  in  the 
unprotected  industries,  side  by  side  with  those 
which  are  protected,  have  for  half  a century 
together  been  higher  than  those  “Protection” 
gives. 

4.  But  it  must  be  always  remembered  that 
nominal  wages  and  real  wages  differ.  The  dollar 
unit  of  wages  under  free  trade  does  not  need  to 
be  clipped  in  its  effort  to  buy  scores  of  commodi- 
ties commanding  prices  artificially  high.  The 
real  wage  dollar,  therefore,  is  likely  to  be  worth 
a dollar  and  a half  where  trade  is  not  restrict- 
ed, while  the  dollar  and  a half  under  “ Protec- 
tion ” may  be  reduced  in  purchasing  value  to  a 
dollar. 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.”  23 

5.  Finally,  of  the  things  that  go  to  make 
wages  high  in  the  United  States  the  following 
are  most  potent : The  beneficence  of  a free 
government ; the  absence  of  a standing  army  ; 
the  immense  breadth  of  country,  with  its  fertile 
soil  and  diversified  climate  ; superiority  of  race, 
and  the  sparseness  of  population  to  a square 
mile.  It  really  makes  some  difference,  taking 
this  latter  point  in  view,  whether  there  are  eigh- 
teen persons  to  a square  mile,  or  from  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  to  upward  of  three  hundred, 
which  is  the  ratio  substantially  between  this 
country  and  Europe.  It  is  always  true,  as  the 
proverb  says,  that  “ where  two  laborers  seek 
one  employer,  the  employer  fixes  the  price  of 
wages  ; but,  where  two  employers  seek  one 
laborer,  the  laborer  fixes  the  price.”  In  this 
country  the  laborer  has  had  a much  larger  voice 
than  laborers  elsewhere  in  fixing  the  wage- 
price,  no  matter  what  our  tariff  for  the  time 
might  be.  He  had  his  relatively  high  price 
here  in  respect  to  foreign  labor,  even  as  far 
back  as  colonial  times,  when  there  was  no  tariff 
to  punish  or  afflict  him. 

6.  The  influence  of  labor  unions,  and  of  im- 
proved automatic  machinery,  which  we  can 
point  to  as  something  dominating  here,  has 
worked  distinctly  to  keep  labor  up. 

7.  Where  disastrous  strikes  and  lock-outs  and 


24  the  truth  about  “protection.” 

labor  tumults  occur  you  may  expect  to  see  the 
“ Protection  ” Grand  Lama  standing  behind 
the  spectacle  as  their  visible  creator.  The  loss 
of  time  alone  caused  by  the  attempt  to  put 
business  on  an  artificial  basis,  and  outside  of 
natural  laws,  is  a heavy  draft  upon  the  wages 
laborers  secure  under  “ Protection*” 

A further  indictment  against  “ Protection- 
ism ” is  the  facility  it  makes  for  the  formation 
of  trusts,  of  which  we  now  have  a hundred  and 
over.  I am  aware  that,  when  pinched  for  argu- 
ment, the  “Protectionist”  tells  us  that  there 
are  trusts  in  England  where  “ Protection  ” does 
not  exist.  If  this  is  so,  England  has  the  con- 
solation of  having  done  nothing  through  legis- 
lation to  make  them.  Everybody  knows  that 
you  can  catch  a spirited  horse  that  is  confined 
to  a high-fenced  door-yard  much  easier  than 
you  can  when  he  has  his  full  liberty  on  a Da- 
kota prairie.  And,  in  the  same  way,  a trust 
can  more  easily  corral  the  public  to  its  com- 
manded high  prices  inside  of  a tariff  wall.  The 
most  noted  “Protectionist”  papers  admit  this 
fact,  in  cool  moments,  by  frequently  urging 
the  reduction  or  entire  removal  of  duties  on  all 
articles  that  are  exploited  in  price  by  a trust 
for  robbing  the  public. 

“ Protection  ” creates  substantially  a new 
crime,  which  could  not  exist  without  tariff  du- 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.”  25 

ties.  It  is  the  high  duty,  in  fact,  that  makes 
smuggling  feasible.  It  was  estimated  by  Secre- 
tary McCulloch  twenty-six  years  ago  that 
the  frauds  upon  the  revenue  at  that  time  were 
nearly  $100,000,000  annually.  Smuggling  is 
the  sure  effect  of  this  system,  which  treats  the 
laudable  effort  and  natural  right  of  men — and 
particularly  women — to  buy  goods  at  a low 
price  as  a crime.  The  mental  process  of  the 
smuggler  is  not  connected  with  a feeling  of 
turpitude  at  all.  He  feels  mainly  that  he  has 
rescued  for  himself  a natural  right,  of  which 
he  has  been  unjustly  deprived.  Is  it  right  to 
make  it  possible  to  confuse  the  domain  and 
practice  of  morals  in  this  way  ? 

It  is  one  of  the  delusions  of  the  “ Protection- 
ist ” that  free  trade  is  a theory.  It  is  often  said 
by  him,  when  troubled  to  straighten  out  his 
own  absurd  philosophy  : “ Oh,  well — free  trade 
is  very  good  as  a theory,  but  it  isn’t  practical.” 
But  this  double  statement  is  contradictory. 
Either  one-half  of  the  assertion  or  the  other  half 
is  wrong.  If  it  is  a good  theory,  it  will  work 
well  ; and  if  it  will  not  work  well,  it  is  not  a 
correct  theory.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  that 
“ Protectionism  ” itself  is  the  theory.  It  was 
not  the  foxes  in  the  fable  who  kept  their  tails 
who  were  the  theorists  : the  theorist  was  the 
one  who  lost  his  in  a trap,  and  who  went  about 


26  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.” 

trying  to  persuade  the  others  that  it  was  much 
better  to  change  the  natural  law,  and  go  with- 
out a tail.  Free  trade  preceded  “ Protection,” 
and  is  nothing  but  an  observance  of  laws  as 
nature  made  them.  It  is  “ Protectionism  ” 
which  is  the  usurper,  the  nostrum-proposer,  and 
which  has  a theory  of  action  it  calls  better  than 
natural  law.  On  it,  therefore,  falls  the  duty  of 
proving  that  commerce  with  its  tail  cut  off  is 
an  improvement  on  commerce  as  the  Creator 
intended  it  should  be. 

A very  fallacious  argument  which  it  uses  to 
make  this  doctrine  accepted  may  be  called 
the  fallacy  of  heterogeneous  comparison. 
I give  a sample  below  which  was  used  by  the 
“Protectionists  ” in  1888  : “ In  Norway  the  peo- 
ple have  free  trade,  and  laborers  get  about  29 
cents  a day.  In  the  United  States  we  have 
‘Protection/  and  laborers  get  $2  a day.”  The 
moral  drawn  was  : See  the  beneficence  of  “ Pro- 
tection.” Now  the  syllogism  would  have  been 
precisely  the  same,  and  the  premises  and  con- 
clusion would  have  been  equally  true  if  the 
argument  had  read  as  follows:  “In  Norway 
the  people  do  not  have  rattlesnakes,  and  labor- 
ers get  about  29  cents  a day.  In  the  United 
States  we  have  rattlesnakes,  and  laborers  get 
$2  a day.”  Moral : See  the  beneficence  of  rattle- 
snakes. The  fraud  in  this  argument  lies  in 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.”  2*J 

heterogeneous  comparison — in  the  fact  that 
Norway  differs  in  almost  every  possible  respect 
from  this  country;  the  points  of  difference  being 
in  climate,  government,  size,  soil,  educational 
and  other  equipment  of  the  laborer,  etc.  Now, 
if  Norway  had  had  a high  tariff  and  we  had  had 
free  trade,  the  disparity  would  still  exist  in  com- 
paring ours  to  a small,  inhospitable  country — 
the  southern  boundary  of  which  is  as  far  north 
as  Labrador,  and  the  arable  area  of  which  is 
not  greater  than  that  of  Illinois — that  exists  now. 
The  free  trader  has  a right  to  believe  that  the 
disparity  would  be  far  greater,  and  overwhelm- 
ingly against  “ Protection.”  But  you  hear  such 
shallow  and  self-stultifying  arguments  ad  nau- 
seam. The  “ Protectionist  ” never  takes  two 
countries  that  are  homogeneous  for  his  com- 
parison ; for,  when  he  does,  the  comparison 
trips  up  his  protective  conclusion.  Chauncey 
Depew  found  that  London  was  the  dumping- 
ground  of  Europe  for  those  who  had  failed  to 
succeed  on  the  continent.  But  he  forgot  to  say 
that  they  all  failed  in  countries  giving  “ Protec- 
tion,” and  went  to  one  devoted  to  free  trade  for 
betterment.  Probably  they  are  largely  the  off- 
scourings of  the  earth,  and  worthless  wherever 
they  are  ; but  when  any  really  find  labor  in 
England,  they  find  a higher  price  for  it  than 
they  could  get  in  any  “ Protection  ” country 


28  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.” 

that  they  left.  And  this  is  a comparison  of  na- 
tions mostly  alike. 

Equally  fair  and  significant  is  it  to  say  that 
wages  in  modern  free-trade  England  are  higher 
than  they  were  when  England  was  devoted  to 
“ Protection.”  The  unfair  comparisons  “ Pro- 
tectionists” always  employ  in  trying  to  show 
what  “ Protectionism  ” does  can  be  made  to 
prove  any  absurdity  true.  Suppose  I say  that 
in  a boxing-match  a man  will  do  better  to  have 
one  hand  tied  behind  his  back.  The  statement 
would  be  absurd  ; but  I bring  John  L.  Sullivan 
on  the  platform,  and  pit  against  him  a rickety 
dwarf.  As  a matter  of  course,  in  spite  of  the 
dwarfs  two  arms  to  Sullivan’s  one,  the  dwarf 
is  knocked  off  the  stage  on  the  first  encounter, 
and  my  contention  is  proved.  To  compare 
other  countries  with  the  United  States  is  like 
matching  one  physically  incompetent  with  Sul- 
livan. 

A serious  loss  which  “ Protection  ” inflicts,  is 
the  obstruction  which  it  puts  upon  invention. 
So  long  as  it  makes  it  possible  to  employ  dilap- 
idated and  ramshackle  machinery  at  a profit, 
there  is  no  motive  or  incentive  to  devise  better, 
or  to  introduce  economic  methods  of  manufac- 
ture. The  American  nation,  with  its  Yankee 
wit  and  boundless  resources,  does  not  need  to 
plead  the  baby  act,  or  ask  odds  of  any  nation 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  *' PROTECTION.”  2g 

in  the  world.  But,  while  the  government  in- 
sists upon  helping  manufactures,  and  paying 
money  also  to  have  new  manufactures  estab- 
lished, the  largess  will  undoubtedly  be  greedily 
accepted,  and  additional  props  will  be  asked 
for.  “ Protection  ” is  like  the  camel  which  first 
stuck  its  head  in  the  Sheik’s  tent,  then  its  fore- 
feet and  shoulders,  then  half  its  body,  and, 
finally,  went  entirely  in  and  took  possession 
by  driving  the  owner  out.  In  like  manner  has 
this  fraudulent  system  dealt  with  the  temple 
of  the  American  government,  and  dispossessed 
the  people  of  their  most  sacred  rights. 

I may  be  asked  why  it  is,  if  “ Protectionism  ” 
is  so  harmful  a system,  that  it  is  maintained  in 
various  countries  and  for  long  periods.  Two 
reasons  sufficiently  account  for  this:  (i)  Gov- 
ernments, whether  monarchical  or  republican, 
have  need  of  vast  sums  of  money,  which  must 
be  raised  by  taxing  the  people.  But  human 
nature  is  so  constituted  that  taxes  are  specially 
odious.  Now,  it  was  long  ago  discovered  that 
a government  can  raise  ten  dollars  through  in- 
direct taxes,  like  imposts,  without  the  people’s 
knowledge  or  complaint,  where  one  dollar  of 
direct  taxation  would  excite  their  dislike  and 
resentment.  (2)  In  addition  to  this,  the  ben- 
eficiaries of  “ Protection  ” are  invariably  picked 
and  powerful  allies  of  a government  or  party. 


30  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.” 

And  when  a government  or  party  wants  sup- 
port, these  purchased  friends  can  be  depended 
on  to  help  it  by  helping  themselves. 

It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  name 
under  which  this  system  masquerades  is  of  it- 
self seductive.  It  is  so  pleasant  to  be  “ pro- 
tected,” or  to  think  you  are,  to  obtain  some- 
thing for  nothing,  which  is  what  it  promises, 
that  this  alone  gives  it  a presumptive  claim. 

As  it  depends  for  its  consideration  wholly  on 
a superficial  reasoning  that  looks  plausible — 
and  the  great  multitude  reason,  when  they 
reason  at  all,  superficially — adherents  to  it  are 
easily  gained  and  easily  made  fanatical. 

One  of  the  reasons  why  “ Protection  ” is  so 
imperfectly  understood  at  this  time,  and  is 
taken  at  its  own  estimate  by  so  many  is,  that 
for  thirty  years  and  over  it  was  hardly  an  issue 
in  political  contests.  For  fifteen  years  before 
the  civil  war  broke  out,  the  country,  by  a gen- 
eral consensus,  had  seen  the  tariff  adapt  itself 
to  a revenue  basis,  and  had  seen  great  pros- 
perity as  the  result.  High  “ Protection  ” had 
received  its  death-blow,  and  would  never  have 
been  successfully  heard  of  again  had  it  not 
been  for  the  war.  The  prosecution  of  this  re- 
quired money,  and  plenty  of  it;  and  when  it 
came  to  raising  revenue,  both  parties  were 
practically  agreed.  The  only  question  was,  not 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.”  3 1 

how  low  or  how  high  the  tariff  rates  should  be, 
but  how  much  money  could  be  got  by  imposts. 
The  free  trader  did  not  object  to  any  combina- 
tion of  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties  upon  any 
article,  even  if  the  full  duty  equaled  300  per 
cent.,  so  long  as  the  requisite  revenue  resulted. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  “ Protectionist  ” could 
see  with  complacency  the  duty  low,  if  in  that 
way  more  money  came  to  the  public  treasury. 
It  was  not  disputed  then  by  anybody  that 
the  tariff  was  a tax.  It  was  known  and  felt  to 
be.  But  under  this  state  of  things,  and  the 
continued  necessity  of  revenues  long  after  the 
war  had  ended,  a generation  grew  up  knowing 
nothing  of  the  philosophy  and  effect  of  a tariff, 
but  accepting  “ Protection,”  for  the  simple  rea- 
son that  to  them,  no  matter  how  absurd  and 
great  was  the  anachronism,  nothing  better  or 
even  different  was  familiar.  The  topic  had 
been  put  in  a poultice.  But  we  are  changing 
all  that  very  fast. 

We  have  got  rid  of  chattel  slavery  in  this 
country.  The  next  duty  is  to  get  rid  of  our 
commercial  bondage.  All  predictions  by 
“ Protectionists  ” of  the  dreadful  things  that 
will  happen  when  their  Grand  Lama  ceases  to 
inspire  worship  are  never  realized.  Our  best 
eras  of  prosperity  were  when  we  had  the  least 
“ Protection.”  England  gained  all  her  modern 


32  THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.” 

commercial  supremacy  by  throwing  “ Protec- 
tion ” off;  the  French  thought  thirty  years  ago 
that  the  Cobden  English  treaty  would  ruin 
their  manufactures,  whereas  it  greatly  extend- 
ed the  French  markets;  and  Germany  was 
fairly  lifted  up  when  the  divisive  tariff  walls  of 
the  various  states  were  swept  away  for  a com- 
mon Zollverein.  The  whole  history  of  trade 
is,  that  the  freer  it  is  the  better  it  is.  It  was  the 
vexatious  domination  of  England  in  our  colo- 
nial trade  arrangements — a complex  and  tor- 
menting body  of  restrictions — that  furnished 
the  just  cause  for  the  American  Revolution. 

It  may  sound  strangely  to  “ Protectionists  ” 
— whose  sincerity  on  behalf  of  their  faith  in  the 
main  I do  not  question — to  be  told  that  their 
wall  between  nations  is  in  its  nature  barbaric 
and  immoral.  So  far  as  it  breaks  down  the 
solidarity  of  humanity  and  seeks  selfish  bene- 
fits and  rejoices  in  crippling  the  trade  and  in- 
dustry of  other  nations,  it  antagonizes  the  fun- 
damental groundwork  of  Christianity  — the 
brotherhood  of  man.  Perhaps  “ Protectionists  ” 
may  make  a better  world,  in  their  own  estima- 
tion, than  the  one  now  existing,  which  the 
Creator  designed.  They  at  any  rate  hold  up 
the  ideal  of  a different  one.  If  their  scheme 
were  made  universal  and  complete,  we  should 
have  every  nation  on  the  earth  in  separate 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “ PROTECTION.”  33 

compartments.  The  oceans,  economically 
speaking,  would  serve  as  seas  of  fire:  instead 
of  peace  and  brotherhood,  and  the  wholesome 
trade  relations  Nature  intended,  by  giving  to 
each  people  differing  gifts  and  endowments, 
we  should  have  jealousies,  irritations  and  wars. 
The  forces  that  make  for  civilization  would  be 
seriously  handicapped,  or  crushed.  An  isola- 
tion like  that  of  China  in  the  twelfth  century 
would  be  the  condition  to  covet  and  admire. 

This  is  the  exact  reverse  of  Emerson’s  wise 
injunction,  to  “ hitch  your  wagon  to  a star.” 
It  would  be  to  put  Diabolus  in  command.  Does 
not  every  sane  man  really  know  that  human 
fellowship,  business  comity  and  close  friendli- 
ness between  nations  are  factors  not  only  of 
economic  value,  but  something  that  money 
solely  cannot  buy,  favoring  an  enlightened 
in  place  of  a sordid  selfishness,  and  helping  to 
bring  about  the  true  federation  of  man  ? Let 
us,  then,  break  down  and  not  establish  hateful 
barriers — remembering  the  fine  spirit  of  Cow- 
per’s  lines: 

“ Lands  intersected  by  a narrow  frith 
Abhor  each  other.  Mountains  interposed 
Make  enemies  of  nations  who  had,  else, 

Like  kindred  drops,  been  mingled  into  one.” 


Elsewhere,  upon  commerce,  he  adds: 


34 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  “PROTECTION.” 


“ Again — the  bond  of  commerce  was  designed 
To  associate  all  the  branches  of  mankind; 

And  if  a boundless  plenty  be  the  robe, 

Trade  is  the  golden  girdle  of  the  globe. 
********* 

“ Each  climate  needs  what  other  climes  produce, 
And  offers  something  to  the  general  use; 

No  land  but  listens  to  the  common  call, 

And  in  return  receives  supply  from  all.” 


The  crowning  absurdity  of  “Protectionism  ” 
is  its  antagonism  of  the  natural  instinct  of  man. 
Instead  of  seeking  plenty  and  abundance  it 
directly  opposes  what  every  man  is  secretly 
striving  for,  and  aims  to  produce  scarcity  and 
deprivation.  Instead  of  promoting  cheap- 
ness— which  means  the  easiness  of  getting 
things — it  works  on  behalf  of  dearness,  and 
difficulty  of  attainment.  It  is  very  much 
afraid  of  finding  “a  cheap  man”  if  the  man 
finds  “ a cheap  coat.”  It  thinks  that  “ cheap 
and  nasty  go  together  ” — to  quote  its  greatest 
American  apostle.  After  establishing  a costly 
governmental  machinery  to  produce  these  mon- 
strous and  unnatural  results,  it  sometimes 
turns  around  and  tells  us  that  things  are  really 
very  much  cheaper  than  before  (as  thefy  have 
once  said  they  should  not  be);  and  that  our 
imports  have  greatly  increased  under  the  high- 
er duties  (which  is  a result  they  generally  pro- 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  u PROTECTION.”  35 

fess  to  be  as  afraid  of  as  Satan  is  reputed  to  be 
of  holy  water). 

It  should  only  be  necessary  to  state  these  con- 
flicting postulates  of  this  singular  philosophy, 
with  which  we  are  all  now  familiar,  to  show  its 
worthlessness,  and  to  prove  that  there  is  not 
and  never  was  a beneficent  “ Protection,”  and 
that  there  has  not  been  and  never  can  be  a 
maleficent  Free  Trade. 

Joel  Benton. 


i 


